4 ms·

For those wondering about lack of e-cigarette mentioning, World Health Org says e-cigarette doesn't help reduce lung cancer for now. https://www.reuters.com/ar

by pcurve 7y ago

For those wondering about lack of e-cigarette mentioning, World Health Org says e-cigarette doesn't help reduce lung cancer for now. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-tobacco/who-says-e-cigarettes-smoke-free-products-do-not-help-reduce-cancer-idUSKCN1UL29C https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-tobacco/who-says-e...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 7y ago
This article is short.. I don't understand how e-cigarettes (granted the liquid is not full of shitty chemicals) can not be an improvement. The carcinogenic compounds were said to come from tobacco combustion byproducts. Theoretically in e-cigarettes.. there's no combustion, only vaporization of nicotine and the liquid. So what's the link ?
- ChrisRR 7y ago
  I would assume because people who have been smoking for years still have the associated increased risk of lung cancer and it'll take years for the people who are purely vapers to start making a statistical difference
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    the article implies that it's not effective, not even a "not yet" .. it's dangerous IMO
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- hannob 7y ago
  There's no doubt that e-cigarettes are better than normal cigarettes. There's also no doubt that e-cigarettes are worse than no cigarettes. However that doesn't answer the question whether they're an improvement. For that you need to look at what people who use e-cigs would do otherwise. And then it gets really complicated, because you really don't know and can only make estimates. That's why this is a question difficult to answer.
- JeremyNT 7y ago
  One trouble with e-cigs that prevents them from being an unmitigated win is that their aggressive marketing targeted towards children is highly effective at getting new users addicted to nicotine. This is a reversal of the trend of long term gradual decline in the use of tobacco-derived products (in developed economies, anyway). On the face of it this seems unrelated to lung cancer rates, but there's concern in the public health community that some percentage of these users will graduate to smoking tobacco over time. I don't think we really know whether those concerns will be borne out, or whether they'll counteract adults switching in time to save themselves.
  - t-writescode 7y ago
    I have trouble believing that people will actually switch from ecigs to actual cigarettes. Adjustable nicotine flavored steam vs cough-inducing smoke with possibly less nicotine? I guess a cigarette is smaller and easier to use where there’s no electricity source? I guess a small percentage might migrate, though, as always happens with anything where you _can_ migrate. A small percentage would try regular cigarettes in the first place too. It will be interesting to see if small subgroup of bigger, new subgroup is larger than historical subgroup.

by pcurve 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 7y ago

This article is short.. I don't understand how e-cigarettes (granted the liquid is not full of shitty chemicals) can not be an improvement. The carcinogenic compounds were said to come from tobacco combustion byproducts. Theoretically in e-cigarettes.. there's no combustion, only vaporization of nicotine and the liquid. So what's the link ?

ChrisRR 7y ago
I would assume because people who have been smoking for years still have the associated increased risk of lung cancer and it'll take years for the people who are purely vapers to start making a statistical difference
- agumonkey 7y ago
  the article implies that it's not effective, not even a "not yet" .. it's dangerous IMO
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hannob 7y ago
There's no doubt that e-cigarettes are better than normal cigarettes. There's also no doubt that e-cigarettes are worse than no cigarettes. However that doesn't answer the question whether they're an improvement. For that you need to look at what people who use e-cigs would do otherwise. And then it gets really complicated, because you really don't know and can only make estimates. That's why this is a question difficult to answer.
JeremyNT 7y ago
One trouble with e-cigs that prevents them from being an unmitigated win is that their aggressive marketing targeted towards children is highly effective at getting new users addicted to nicotine. This is a reversal of the trend of long term gradual decline in the use of tobacco-derived products (in developed economies, anyway). On the face of it this seems unrelated to lung cancer rates, but there's concern in the public health community that some percentage of these users will graduate to smoking tobacco over time. I don't think we really know whether those concerns will be borne out, or whether they'll counteract adults switching in time to save themselves.
- t-writescode 7y ago
  I have trouble believing that people will actually switch from ecigs to actual cigarettes. Adjustable nicotine flavored steam vs cough-inducing smoke with possibly less nicotine? I guess a cigarette is smaller and easier to use where there’s no electricity source? I guess a small percentage might migrate, though, as always happens with anything where you _can_ migrate. A small percentage would try regular cigarettes in the first place too. It will be interesting to see if small subgroup of bigger, new subgroup is larger than historical subgroup.